MMR vaccine not linked to autism, even in high risk kids

[Os Cangaceiros]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/04/21/us-autism-mmr-vaccine-idUSKBN0NC1WK20150421

[John Nada]

I wish the anti-vaxxers would listen to science. But arguing with them is like banging your head against the wall. Almost like a religion.

[Creative Destruction]

wasn't this pretty much settled years ago?

eta. i mean, not the politics of it, obviously, but the science.

[Antiochus]

If a parent doesn't vaccinate their kids out of this belief (i.e not that they can't afford the vaccine) and the child gets sick, they should be charged with attempted homicide.

[Armchair Partisan]

If a parent doesn't vaccinate their kids out of this belief (i.e not that they can't afford the vaccine) and the child gets sick, they should be charged with attempted homicide.

Come on. There is no actual intention to harm. It's criminal neglect at best.

[Antiochus]

I mean, its tantamount to putting a kid on the roof of a high rise building and placing candy on the edges and saying "well u know since gravity is just a hoax invented by the Zionists...".

Also, it isn't just their kids that are put at risk. There really are people who can't take vaccines (for a variety of reasons) that are put at risk by this.

[The Intransigent Faction]

Yeah, arguing with anti-vaxxers probably isn't productive. If people are skeptical about the state having their best interests in mind, that's healthy, because it doesn't. However, in this case its interests coincide with what really is best for people.

As for the supposed link between vaccines and autism, the problem with this narrative goes deeper than the issue of whether or not there is a link (there isn't):

http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/anne-th%C3%A9riault/2015/02/stop-saying-vaccines-dont-cause-autism-its-nothing-to-be-afrai

[mushroompizza]

When ever a movement has "Mom" in the name, you can check me out. Moms against violent video games, Moms against vaccines, Moms against fun and happiness, Moms against children, Moms against everything not a mom.

[BIXX]

When ever a movement has "Mom" in the name, you can check me out. Moms against violent video games, Moms against vaccines, Moms against fun and happiness, Moms against children, Moms against everything not a mom.
Drunks drivers against angry mothers

[John Nada]

Drunks drivers against angry mothersDDAAM:lol: and it sister/fraternal organization Druggies Against Mad Mothers(DAMM).

[Slavic]

I wish the anti-vaxxers would listen to science. But arguing with them is like banging your head against the wall. Almost like a religion.

I agree with the sentiment, I just find it hilarious that I have seen posters on this forum specifically bash "science" and its evil "empirical method" for study results that they don't agree with, but are all on board with using science as the basis for dismissing autism and vaccination connections.

Its almost like they are nit picking study results like the evil bourgeoisie scientists do.

This isn't directed at you, I just find the irony delicious.

[John Nada]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a1/Unholy_three.pngVaccines are an essential component of our plot to destroy Christianity and America.:laugh:

The anti-vaccine movement has long been associated with the far-right, yet it also appeals to liberalism's individuality. To the reactionaries, any attempt at preventing or alleviating suffering is abomination that goes against the will of God. The notion that pain and suffering in life is righteous, for the reward comes in the hereafter, is a cornerstone of religion. Hence you end up with shit anti-choice, austerity, and restricting palliative support for the seriously and terminally ill people(ie banning painkillers for childbirth and terminally ill patients, because God meant for them to suffer and alleviating it will only damn them).

This whole "vaccines cause autism" shit is a Trojan horse for these reactionaries. The average liberal won't agree with them on vaccines being a Masonic-Jewish-Satanist-Communist conspiracy to help the Anti-Christ rule the world through the UN. But they can guilt parents into believing that anything bad that has happened to their children is punishment for their "sins". In this case, the sin is prevent God from cursing humanity with diseases, the punishment is autism. This is then a burden on the parent, who's sin is giving birth to an oppressed person in a capitalist society which only values people based on how much value they can make for the bourgeoisie. It's reactionaries guilting parents to further their agenda. .

I do find it strange that a lot of autism awareness groups seem to just focused on vaccines and how their child(apparently in their minds, autistic adults don't exist:rolleyes: ) makes life so hard for them as a parent. And the people who are supposedly "harmed" don't a voice in this. It's as bigoted as claiming vaccines make your kids gay(which wouldn't matter either). But ableism is the most acceptable form of bigotry now, so none give a fuck.

[Proukunin]

I'm sure you'll still hear Alex Jones scream about how our government is trying to cover up the fact that it does cause autism by some "communistic science destined to destroy the world." :laugh:

[noble brown]

I will say this... I have a healthy skepticism for the contemporary scientific community and their findings. I'm skeptical of the peer review process in its current incarnation. This is directly caused by the commodification of science. There are very dogmatic people on boths sides of this table. Science is empirical and generally represents the best conclusion we can draw from the most current information. It, however, is not and should never be taken as definitive. I think it's unfortunate that the defenders of science find it so ludicrous to be skeptical of the current way science is funded, studied and reported. That being said the "anti-science" movement goes to far.

[Loony Le Fist]

I will say this... I have a healthy skepticism for the contemporary scientific community and their findings. I'm skeptical of the peer review process in its current incarnation. This is directly caused by the commodification of science. There are very dogmatic people on boths sides of this table. Science is empirical and generally represents the best conclusion we can draw from the most current information. It, however, is not and should never be taken as definitive. I think it's unfortunate that the defenders of science find it so ludicrous to be skeptical of the current way science is funded, studied and reported. That being said the "anti-science" movement goes to far.

I think it's important to look at motivations. If monetizing a product relies on the science working consistently then I think it's fair to say that the results are going to reliable. An electric car that only works some of time is not proftiable.

In the case of pharmaceutical drugs and medicine there is money to be made even if the science is unreliable. There is a lot more lucrative quackery in medicine and drugs for this reason. Especially in the case of medicines used to treat psychological disorders and those for pain management.

Its important to look at each field of study individually.

[noble brown]

I think it's important to look at motivations. If monetizing a product relies on the science working consistently then I think it's fair to say that the results are going to reliable. An electric car that only works some of time is not profitable

What makes this problematic is that profitability has little to do with efficacy.

[Loony Le Fist]

What makes this problematic is that profitability has little to do with efficacy.

Very true. However, there are some products where efficacy can be tied to profitability. Granted that profit is not an adequate measure of societal benefit.

We can both agree that capitalism is inefficient because it places profits over people--ironic considering that the whole point of an economic system is to benefit people.